www.theamericanenterprise.com 1/7/03 5:00 p.m. by Thor L. Halvorssen

On January 1 Venezuela entered into its second month of a national work stoppage. Close to 90 percent of the working population refuses to participate as producers in an economy that supports the regime of Lieutenant Col. Hugo Chavez. In a disorganized and chaotic fashion, without any single leader or political party, the people (known as “the opposition”) have taken a page out of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, and tried to answer an important question in that literary masterpiece: what would happen if the productive forces laboring under a despotic government went on strike and ceased subsidizing their own subjugation?

Chavez, a radical Marxist, was elected four years ago on a campaign promising to eradicate poverty and do away with government corruption. Since he was elected he has done away with the rule of law and private property while presiding over the greatest oil boom in Venezuela’s history. Corruption and poverty have grown to levels unseen in the country’s history. Chavez passed 49 decrees that expropriated private property in the name of his “revolution.” He terrorizes the opposition with his militia, the Circulos Bolivarianos—armed thugs financed by the government. But there is hope.

The country is united against Chavez. The labor unions and the chamber of commerce oppose him. They all speak of liberty, dignity, and the right to work for one’s prosperity. They see his rule as a threat and on December 1, 2002 they discontinued their complicity. The unions orchestrated the closing of industry for one day. Then they extended it another day. And another... New Year’s Day was the 30th day. But most surprising and encouraging: the government’s main source of revenue, the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, has also stopped.

The drama of the oil stoppage illustrates the magical realism that South America is famous for. Beyond the 40,000 laborers, engineers, and technicians that left the refineries and oil fields, the stoppage climaxed at sea. Dozens of oil tankers, part of the merchant marine, suddenly dropped their anchors and declared solidarity with the opposition. One ship, the Pilin Leon, was headed for Cuba (Chavez supplied free oil to Fidel Castro’s government). Some companies use names of kings and heroes, others use names of presidents or business leaders, in Venezuela, oil tankers are named after the country’s second greatest export: beauty queens. Pilin Leon was the Venezuelan beauty queen who became Miss World 1981. The drama surrounding the Pilin Leon became the focus of the struggle. Miss Leon herself, in London judging the Miss Universe contest that had recently been moved from Nigeria, sent the ship’s crew a message that she was proud of them and hoped they would stand firm. They did.

Days later, The tanker was taken over in a commando-style raid by Venezuela’s armed forces after Chavez decreed the lethal use of force in order to protect the “energy supply of the revolution.” Other tankers were also forced back to port but most remain anchored—Chavez does not have the manpower with the expertise to sail them at full capacity. Oil facilities use less than 10 percent of their capacity.

The governments of the hemisphere have abandoned the liberty-lovingproducers of Venezuela (Brazil’s government, now headed by Chavez sympathizer Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has shipped tankers with gasoline to break the work stoppage) and the U.S. Ambassador here has blithely mouthed platitudes about the importance of democracy while disregarding the crimes of the government. He even failed to condemn the televised murder of opposition members by Chavez thugs, instead engaging in moral equivalency and blaming “two sides.”

Perhaps the U.S. government’s policy on Chavez (nefariously influenced by President Clinton’s former Ambassador to Venezuela who is now Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council advisor for Latin America) is betting on the chance that Chavez can weather the work stoppage and get the oil flowing soon (for an Iraq war timetable?). Venezuela supplies the U.S. with 15 percent of its oil imports.

As in Rand’s novel, things get progressively worse and government rhetoric cannot alter the reality. Chavez calls the country’s workers “Traitors who have stabbed their country in the back.” His ministers publicly suggested that lethal force be used to compel the workers to return to their posts.

There is no fear in Venezuela. There is resolve, indignation, and determination. The oil workers have daily meetings, massive gatherings taking place at amphitheaters, universities, and even ballrooms. Their will is unshakeable in the face of the tyrant. The wheels of production have stopped turning. For now Atlas has shrugged.

—Thor L. Halvorssen has served as a political strategist and campaign consultant in two Venezuelan presidential elections. He lives in Philadelphia.

E-mail: tae@aei.org

The American Enterprise Online: www.taemag.com

www.aynrand.org By Robert Tracinski           A recent news article described the nationwide strike in Venezuela, in protest against the nascent dictatorship of Hugo Chavez, as seeming "like something from fiction." Well, yes, it seems very similar to one work of fiction in particular: Ayn Rand's prophetic 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged.         The parallels between fiction and fact are striking. In Ayn Rand's novel, America is sliding into an economic dictatorship, so inventors and businessmen lead a secret walk-out, withdrawing their support from the "looters" who want to plunder the wealth they create. They declare that they won't return until the looters relinquish power. Rand's working title for the novel was "The Strike." In an era of frequent, sometimes violent strikes by factory workers, it was shockingly original to suggest that the entrepreneurs, inventors and capitalists might go on strike.         Ayn Rand's imagined strike is no longer fiction. For four years, Venezuela has been gradually sliding into an economic and political dictatorship under Marxist populist Hugo Chavez, an open admirer of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. In response, the nation's largest federation of businessmen has led the nation for more than 40 days in a massive work stoppage. Venezuela's most productive citizens have gone on strike to protest their imminent liquidation under Chavez's communist revolution.         It is not just the main storyline that is the same; many details are similar. In Atlas Shrugged, the decisive step toward dictatorship is Directive 10-289, which gives bureaucrats the power to rule by decree, holding an iron grip on every productive enterprise in the country. In Venezuela, the crisis was touched off a year ago when a Chavez-controlled assembly gave him the power to rule by decree. Without even consulting parliament, Chavez issued 49 infamous decrees that gave him an iron grip on every productive enterprise in the country.         In Atlas Shrugged political demagogues denounce the "monopolistic power" of a self-made steel tycoon — while engaging in feverish horse-trading of government favors and black-market loot. In Venezuela Chavez was elected on a promise to clean up corruption in Venezuela's state-run industries; what followed was an even bigger wave of corruption to reward Chavez's cronies.         Late in the novel the political villains of Atlas Shrugged deliberately sacrifice the country's economic survival to maintain their control, decreeing that unprofitable rail lines be kept running — even though this dooms the industrial centers — so that they can ensure the transportation of government troops. Hugo Chavez just made a similar choice. Chavez has announced plans to split and decentralize Venezuela's oil monopoly in an attempt to break the strike by its workers. Analysts project the reorganized industry won't achieve more than a fraction of its pre-strike production. But, they note, Chavez has made a choice to sacrifice production — and his nation's prosperity — in order to maintain his dictatorial control.         In Atlas Shrugged, as the country approaches full dictatorship, government functionaries start to adopt military affectations. This was a detail Ayn Rand learned from her own youth in Russia during the early years of the Soviet tyranny; in her 1936 novel, We The Living, the young Russian Communists are described as wearing identical military-style leather jackets. Military trappings are the natural expression of a society increasingly subject to the rule of force. In Venezuela, therefore, we see Hugo Chavez — a former paratrooper — still wearing military-style garb, though he is ostensibly a civilian leader.         These parallel plot points are indications of a deeper connection. Chavez rose to power four years ago by spouting the accepted bromides of modern politics. Like the villains in Atlas Shrugged, he demonized the real producers as "exploiters" and promised to exploit them in return. And he promised that there was no problem that could not be fixed by the use of a government bludgeon. The left-leaning international press so firmly believes these platitudes that it has rushed into print, in publications ranging from the New York Times to Britain's Guardian, to denounce the courageous Venezuelan opposition and sing hosannas to Chavez.         Ayn Rand's novel was not just a warning against dictatorship. It was a warning against the moral code that regards business, self-interest and the profit motive as evil. It was her warning against the moral philosophy that preaches the sacrifice of the individual to the envious masses — and thus unleashes any demagogue who promises to loot the producers for the sake of the "little guy."         That lesson, presented in fictional form, is also the lesson to be drawn from the drama now being acted out in real life.

Comments in response to this post:

I knew that finally Ayn Rand would be invoked, it was just a matter of when. Now that the opposition is losing the war does this rhetorical weapon come into play. Won't stop Chavez from winning, but it will bring in Objectivists who Google search for her name. If Chavez was runing a real communist state, guys like Miguel here would be in psych wards and gulag cells. God knows they need the rubber room. joe blowe [josh@campusnonsense.com] • 2/10/03; 3:35:15 PM

Well, Joe its coming, its just that Chavez is incompetent on everything. In any case, all I did was say, here is an article about it, I did not endorse it, but there are some parallels. Read my blog, I dont believe Chavez is a Communist, just an egotistical, self-centered, militaristic fool. And if he needs to set up a psych ward or gulag, he will do it. Miguel Octavio [moctavio@bbo.com.ve] • 2/10/03; 4:28:04 PM

The Randian connection is interesting, but I think the general strike and related protests are comparable to other large-scale civil protests in South America in the past. However, because Chavez's regime is obstensibly left-wing, the media here in the states are less willing to play up the voluntaristic aspects of the anti-Chavez protests. If Chavez were a right-wing would-be dictator, Venezuela would be flooded with major foreign media outlets looking to cover the latest protest march against "the hated Chavez regime." Matthew [portablematthew@yahoo.com] • 2/11/03; 7:49:01 AM

www.sun-sentinel.com By Lois K. Solomon Education Writer Posted February 10 2003

Venezuelan families, fleeing problems in their country, are enrolling their children in Palm Beach and Broward County schools as they wait for strikes and violence to subside in their homeland.

One of the schools with the biggest Venezuelan surge is 669-student Calusa Elementary in Boca Raton, where 56 Venezuelans have enrolled since Jan. 7. Principal Ann Faraone said her staff has been stunned each day as Venezuelan parents appear in the office.

"It kind of came unexpectedly," Faraone said. "After a few days of it, we looked at each other and said, `Something is going on here.'"

Broward County schools also are seeing an increase in the number of Venezuelans: About 300 have enrolled in the past month, many in Weston and Davie, joining about 600 others who have registered since the school year began.

"It's a remarkable number," said Tania Mena, bilingual coordinator for Broward County schools. "If they bring their papers and fulfill all the requirements, we let them in."

Many Venezuelans fled to South Florida in December after a general strike, organized by opponents of President Hugo Chávez, paralyzed the nation's oil industry and closed most schools and businesses.

The strike, which began Dec. 2, was called by labor and business groups that oppose the Chávez government. They are demanding early elections and Chávez's resignation. Chávez has refused. He insists opponents must wait until August for a referendum, as permitted in the constitution.

Some Venezuelans began to return home last month after some banks, schools, malls and larger companies announced they would reopen. Others, however, have decided to risk uncertain immigration status and stay.

One mother of two, who asked that her name not be used because of immigration issues, decided to stay with her children in their Highland Beach condominium and enroll them in school because the strike closed the shops and schools in their neighborhood.

"We were here for vacation, so we decided to stay," said the woman, 37, a civil engineer whose employer could not pay her because of the strike. "The private clubs with pools and the malls were all closed. I had no work."

She said her children are enjoying Calusa, but the family plans to return to Venezuela next week because schools are scheduled to reopen. Backing for the strike and its leaders has withered, and it may be called off in coming weeks.

Still, experts say the Venezuelan exodus into South Florida likely will not end soon.

"As long as Chávez stays in office, I don't expect a lot to go back," said Jerry Haar, senior research associate at the North-South Center, a think tank on U.S.-Latin American relations at the University of Miami. "They have faith in their country, but they hedge and keep a vacation home because they want to play it safe."

Haar said wealthy Venezuelans gravitate to Palm Beach County, attracted by the many gated, golfcommunities. The Venezuelan students at Calusa live in several upscale condominiums and country club communities, including Broken Sound, Woodfield Country Club and Boca West.

The Venezuelan influx is not totally new to Calusa. The school experiences a small surge of about a dozen students each January, when many South American schools take a lengthy vacation and families with vacation homes enroll their children in school to learn English. As homeowners who pay taxes, their children are eligible for public school.

Even though four times the usual number have enrolled in the past few weeks, Faraone said the school has had few problems absorbing them, although some class sizes have grown considerably.

Although the increase in Venezuelan students is unusual, South Florida schools are accustomed to student influxes from other countries, said Steve Byrne, assistant director for multicultural education for Palm Beach County schools. In the past three years, more than 1,500 new students have come from Colombia, almost 2,000 from Mexico and more than 5,000 from Haiti, he said.

Many of the schools are in neighborhoods that already have a large number of families from a single country, such as Haiti or Brazil, he said. These schools have bilingual specialists to develop the new students with Englishskills and are accustomed to a nonstop influx of students.

Omni Middle School in Boca Raton also has received an unexpected surge, about 35 Venezuelan students since early January, guidance counselor Lowene Torner said.

"This is major for us," she said. "One day, we enrolled 12."

Lois Solomon can be reached at lsolomon@sun-sentinel.com or 561-243-6536.

www.boston.com

CARACAS - President Hugo Chavez threatened yesterday to jail the thousands of oil workers fired for leading a two-month strike against him. ''Fired is nothing! Many of them should go to prison for sabotaging the Venezuelan economy,'' Chavez said of the more than 9,000 workers dismissed from the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. Chavez's threat came one day after more than 100,000 Chavez opponents protested in Caracas in support of the fired oil workers. Thousands more held a similar protest yesterday in the state of Carabobo, 66 miles west of the capital. The nationwide strike was called Dec. 2 to demand Chavez's resignation or early elections. But its leaders - business groups, labor unions, and leftist and conservative politicians - agreed to end the protest last week in all areas but the crucial oil industry. (AP)

www.heritage.org by Stephen Johnson WebMemo #181

December 20, 2002 | WebMemo | 

Two neighbors in Latin America are on the brink of implosion. Government collapse in Haiti could unleash a flood of refugees on American and Caribbean shores, while crumbling democracy in Venezuela is already threatening oil supplies at a moment when Washington contemplates military action in the Middle East.

In both countries, powerful populist presidents have stoked class warfare, creating deep divisions between regime supporters and opponents instead of promoting consensus and equality before the law. Efforts to expand their own authority have weakened legislative and judicial institutions to the point that they no longer function.  Corruption has spread, their economies have faltered, and opponents have taken to the streets to force their resignation.

In one of the largest demonstrations in Haitian history, 15,000 protesters gathered in the city of Cap Haïtien on November 17 to demand President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s resignation. Elected in 1990 and then ousted by a military takeover when he failed to organize a functional government, he was restored to power in 1994 by a U.S.-led multi-national invasion force. Since then, Haiti has had a make-believe democracy.

After the end of his first term in 1995, Aristide ruled through President René Préval, a submissive proxy, until he could be elected again in 2000 through a vote boycotted by opponents. Since 1997, the country has been without a legitimately elected parliament. Hundreds of millions of aid dollars were wasted on projects Aristide failed to support, prompting donors like the United States to suspend direct assistance. Now pro-Aristide gangs with names like “Cannibal Army” and “Asleep in the Woods” roam the streets to suppress dissent.

Meanwhile in Venezuela, some 2 million citizens marched on December 14 to urge the resignation of President Hugo Chávez, fearing that he would use emergency powers to establish a Castro-style dictatorship. The one-time coup plotter and cashiered army officer was elected in 1998 promising to help Venezuela’s 80 percent poor majority and clean up corruption.  Riding a wave of popular support, he rewrote the constitution to expand presidential powers and extend his term in office.

But instead of helping the downtrodden, he diverted government funds to military cronies to buy loyalty and to organize armed, partisan street gangs called “Bolivarian Circles.” Unconstitutional decrees to curb property rights and hobble private enterprise led to a rebellion last April, temporarily toppling him from power. Since then, the breech between Chávez and opponents has widened with a series of national strikes, one of which paralyzed the government’s cash cow—the state-owned petroleum industry—in turn affecting oil exports to the United States and other neighboring countries. On December 15, Chávez claimed his orders could not be overriden by the courts.

Years ago, U.S. officials could have nudged events in a different direction. In Haiti, they might have planned for an extended international presence until it became truly self-governing. And over the years, they could have made effective democratic governance an engagement priority in Venezuela.  Now, it has fallen to the Organization of American States (OAS) to resolve these crises with meager tools.

A deliberative body, the OAS has no aid to offer as a lever. And its one-year-old Inter-American Democratic Charter can only be used to promote mediation or suspend the membership of non-democratic states. Without a two-thirds vote among members, suspension can’t be approved and, even if applied, suspended states can turn around and kick out the mediators. Nonetheless, it is a starting point.

Indeed, the United States and other member states should invoke the charter to recognize the political breakdown in each country. In Haiti, President Aristide has violated the letter and spirit of the 1987 constitution by manipulating the electoral process and failing to protect human rights. President Chávez has subverted his charter through arbitrary decrees, by usurping the authority of local officials, and actions to block the courts and National Assembly.

With respect to Haiti, the United States and other international parties could leverage aid. Because of Haiti’s faltering economy, Aristide has been lobbying for a bailout. The Bush Administration, in coordination with other donors should offer to restore direct assistance, but only if Haitian leaders accept a U.S.-led donor oversight commission to provide for supervised elections and long-term direction in salvaging and rebuilding democratic institutions.

Venezuela is more complicated. Since the government controls the lucrative state petroleum industry, aid is not a factor. Many in the opposition want new elections as a way of replacing the entire administration. But that would require an extraconstitutional deal between contentious elites or an unlikely and cumbersome change to the national charter.

Chávez could also be removed by a referendum halfway through his term—next August. But, Vice-President José Vicente Rangel—the brains behind him—would become president, posing new problems. Although the National Assembly has the power to impeach Chávez at any time and schedule new elections, half of the Assembly is out on strike and Chávez could declare marshal law and suspend the body before they act.

While the Bush Administration might favor an electoral solution in principle—it should refrain from a specific proposal that, absent a Venezuelan consensus, could lead all sides to blame the United States for any failure. It should bring pressure to bear on Chávez and his opponents to allow a constitutional solution and once agreed, press for international supervision of the process to guarantee the rights and free expression of all participants. In the meantime, U.S. and allied diplomats might encourage opposition parties to develop a plan for how they would govern in case Chávez leaves or is recalled from office.

In the interests of regional stability and security, the United States should redouble lagging efforts to back those struggling for democracy and help guarantee space for its practice to flourish. Diplomacy and coordinated action with hemispheric allies is a good place to start.

Stephen Johnson is Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.